You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 1 May 2014
Date of Publication: 22 May 2014
Inspection Report published 22 May 2014 PDF | 86.31 KB


Inspection carried out on 1 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected during our inspection at Francis House. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask.

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive to people's needs?

� Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were encouraged to maintain their independence and we saw examples of this during the inspection, with people undertaking activities of their choice. We observed staff talking with and supporting people during our time in the home, and we observed that this was done with the person's privacy and dignity in mind. This demonstrated staff's awareness of people's individual support needs and was reflected in the care plans we viewed on the day.

We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff were trained in how to follow the procedures. Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and we saw that potential safeguarding issues had been responded appropriately to by the service.

Staff told us that they involved other health and social care professionals to support people with their needs. We saw evidence to confirm this in the care records, with evidence of engagement with mental health professionals and GPs. Where people displayed behaviour which may challenge others, there was comprehensive guidance for staff to follow in relation to what may trigger the behaviour and how to respond effectively.

Incidents and accidents in the home were recorded by staff, assessed by the manager and appropriate action was taken in response to these incidents. This meant that appropriate procedures were in place for staff to learn from incidents and know how to minimise the risk of them re-occurring.

We saw that the premises were well maintained with no risks to people�s safety. We found that there were enough staff to support people�s safely and to meet their needs appropriately.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs). We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Whilst no applications had been submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place but none had been necessary. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be submitted. People�s human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people were involved in their care planning to the best of their abilities. It was clear that people had stated their preferences, likes and dislikes and the records indicated their involvement. This meant steps were taken to involve people in making decisions about their care and support. We found that care plans gave details of people�s preferences in relation to the way they liked to be cared for and supported. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people�s needs and knew how they preferred to be supported. This meant people were supported to express their views in relation to their care and support.

The records we reviewed evidenced that the risks around people�s nutrition and hydration were monitored and managed. We saw that food and drink was stored correctly and the kitchen was clean. We saw that appropriate food and drink was available to meet people�s needs and preferences.

Is the service caring?

People told us that staff treated them with kindness and respect. We observed staff knocking on people�s doors before entering their rooms and respected their decisions. For example, staff asked one person if we could look in their room. The person chose not to allow us entry and staff respected the decision that had been made. One person said, �I really wasn�t sure when I came here, it was different to what I knew, but it is ok.�

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people�s needs and preferences and we saw that diversity monitoring took place on admission to explore individual needs and preferences such as culture and sexuality. We saw that staff supported people with their diverse needs, such as dietary preference and religious needs.

We found that there were regular meetings held between the manager, staff and people using the service. These were used to discuss activities and raise any concerns and issues that people had. This meant people were supported to make their views known about the service.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported to give their views on their care and support through monthly sessions held between them and their key worker (a member of staff nominated to each person) and also through monthly meetings held with staff and other people living in the home. We saw that the service responded to people�s comments and acted upon issues when appropriate.

No formal activities took place but a variety of activities were available for people to access and we found that people were supported to do the activities that they wanted to. Records showed that when people�s needs changed, staff made the appropriate referrals and made changes to care plans to reflect the new changes.

People knew how to raise a concern if they had one and information on making a complaint was available. There was a clear procedure on what action would be taken if people made a complaint.

Is the service well- led?

We spoke with a member of staff and they said that they felt management treated them fairly and listened to what they had to say. They told us they felt confident in raising issues of concern with the management. One person we spoke with told us they felt they could approach the staff team if they had anything to discuss. This meant there was an open and transparent culture in the home.

We saw there was a clear procedure for staff to follow should a concern be raised. We also looked at the processes in place for monitoring incidents, accidents and safeguarding issues. These were well managed with clear awareness throughout the organisation on how to learn from these incidents.

There were effective governance procedures in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. This was at all levels from the staff working in the home to the registered manager. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed in a timely manner and followed up to ensure continuous improvement. People using the services were asked their views and they were acted upon.